Christopher Hitchens on Charlie Rose 08-May-96 (Part 2)

[sonfowler1127]

This is a "clever" video. =p

[gortmog]

Holocaust denyers disgust me, but people who want to shut them up disgust me even more.

[beyondtruthagain]

Breindel is such a douche liar bag: yeah historians like Hilberg maybe?

[beyondtruthagain]

Irving is more than a necessary historian of the subject. He's one of the not many authors who has a point of view based on documents and archives, other so called conformed historian base their books or views on nohing in the end.

[beyondtruthagain]

Breindel is just a zionist puppet.

[ChrisBrett2K]

CH Absolutely unshakeable, not a hint of stress. Breindel was simply out gunned. Freedom of speech is a right that should be defended first or we limit our own freedoms.

[youztuber5000]

*shudders* ...that Breindel dude is a creep.

[MrLincolnj]

It is ridiculous of Hitchens to call Irving a 'necessary Historian of the subject'. Irving is nothing of the kind. He is a fraud, a non-historian, many of whose written claims are fake, and have been exposed as such by bona fide historians like Andrew Roberts. Hitchens' support for Irving has to do with the fact that Irving had the same diseased opinions on Churchill as himself. Hitchens has a moderately good intellect, but sometimes he plays the goat, and is a bigger buffoon than we suspect.

[bongoloid77]

Breindel is a wind up toy...

[1975howardgoldman]

It is funny how there was no Holocaust education going on in America 20 years after the Holocaust. This all took flight when Israel needed Aid and Support from us. So they hedged there bets on a series of guilt trips until now, if you are a goyem and you question anything, you are an anti-semite and you will lose your job. But if you are Jew and you make up stuff about the holocaust, you get a free pass.

[bongoloid77]

@1975howardgoldman Yep... as impartial and objective as I am... the evidence is mounting against Israel and the Thrifty race...

[1975howardgoldman]

@bongoloid77 I am not saying in many ways we shouldn't support Israel, but when basic question such as the USS Liberty, get responded with anti-semitism, it is becoming clear. I think Helen thomas is a mongloid pretty much, but when she said, you can say anything you want about the president of the US, but one word about Israel, will get you fired, there is astrong point to be made she is right.

[1975howardgoldman]

Eric Breindel died of AIDS, and was married to Tama Jacoby. It is easy to see why a man would go gay after marrying that hideous form of DNA. I realize all he shows is he will try to controll the goyem until the day he dies.

[manthasagittarius]

Breindel was very likely in failing health by then too -- he certainly looks it, and the pressured quality of his delivery could be attributed to such. He died less than two years after this discussion of liver failure which had been some time developing pursuant to some pain medication issues.

[dalhar20]

He offered a different perspective to a situation , however blasphemous, it can help historians.

[yl715]

Hitchens is outmatched here. He comes off as apologetic for a pseudo historian- David Irving.

[manthasagittarius]

@yl715 I don't think so. He's not supporting Irving's opinions or the merits of his findings, but only Irving's knowledge of the material and his right to put his views out -- especially when a publisher has reneged for peripheral market reasons.

[bongoloid77]

@yl715

No he diesn't... he was clear and point was made within the first 2 mins...

[kaunas88]

Arguing that people should shut up and recant because they are being called names is the weakest form of argument. Saying that someone cannot express an opinion because it is: seditious, blasphemous, counter revolutionary, heretical, racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, etc is a way usually to short circuit facts and try to shame one into shutting up and not expressing his opinion. 

[rudyell]

The holocaust is unique in that it seems to be the only atrocity in history where freedom of speech isn't allowed

[stoprainingonme]

@rudyell Denial of the Armenian Holocaust by the Turks in WW1 is illegal in France (as is denial of the Jewish Holocaust).

[irishgeal1]

the holocaust industry rolls on but free speech has stopped.

[teameymelli1]

once again, i side with Hitch...that breindroll is a crack

[felixq78]

Who is this squeaky voiced little worm? He's about due for another shot of smack I think or maybe the AIDS is catching up with him.

[MrMonkeyInk]

Eric Breindel here puts up the best challenge to Hitch I have seen.

[felixq78]

@MrMonkeyInk

How's that? He has absolutely nothing to support his argument. If you actually look into this whole Jewish matter it is clearly obvious that the holocaust was an invention of the Zionists who started WW2 by financing Hitler himself.

[concussedcarneous]

@felixq78 then the war wouldn't have ended that soon, would it?

that was poorly summarized.

[braktuun]

@felixq78 what utter piffle

[Freethinker12341]

@felixq78 you sir are denying what took place in my family! my grandmother survived the holocaust you prick. she and a brother were the only ones who survived. her entire family was wiped out in auschwitz

[irishgeal1]

@Freethinker12341 did your grandmothers family die from gas or typhus.

[MrMonkeyInk]

@felixq78 Actually, "if you actually look into this whole Jewish matter it is clearly obvious" that the Holocaust wasn't an invention of Zionists but was an historical actuality. To deny the reality of the Holocaust is absurd given the evidence and the eye witness accounts. Zionists are respectively blamed for all manner of conflicting conspiracies.

Hitler's rhetoric alone should be enough to give you the hint that, given total power, he was always going to attempt such mass extermination.

[Freethinker12341]

@MrMonkeyInk ya because hitch doesn't have truth on his side for once

[hafnia28]

For once I disagree with Hitchens. There got to be certain standards that a publishing house can set for whom they would publish. Say for instance a doctor publish interesting books about medicine but ridiculously stupid and falcifying books about evolution they have a perfectly good reason not to publish it.

[besmb2105]

@hafnia28 I agree with you):

[mobilechief]

A publisher sold publish , let the reader make his/her view or you have no freedom!

[WarzSchoolchild]

Eric is a "Hero"....Books that are banned, have far more appeal than books that only get good reviews in obscure journals....If anybody out there knows of a controversial book, that is well written and reveals startling new evidence. then contact Eric and get him to demand the book is withdrawn from publication. Cut a deal with the Author, and publish privately, hold back dozens of1st Editions, and sell them later for mega-bucks on Amazon.

[newfagscanttrif0rce]

Storm in a teacup really:

1. Irving is a douche

2. Hitchens wants to let him be a douche and let us read his book

3. Eric wants to stop him, or at least reduce the spread of douchiness by making his book harder to obtain

[Flipper79able]

I think Eric is the Nazi......defending censorship.

[artistsandbox]

(7:37) huhant-hue-huharlie . .creepy smile

[1THETRUTH10]

The jews start with the position they are the chosen race of God. This makes them the most racist,arrogant race (if being jewish is a race?) on the planet. What they are doing to Israil is no different to what Hitler were doing! I hope some day america stops funding zionism....and Israiel stops murdering and also the world would be a safer place without Israils nuclear threat! In one way if Israil strike Iran,at least the world will come down on Israil,and stop their grusome action's!

[mobilechief]

@1THETRUTH10 Well said I am tired of my money in the way of taxes funding Zionist Fascism of Israel to oppress the people who were there before the end of ww2

[peakzero]

Eric Breindel is such a cock.

[glaubs65]

@peakzero and how do you know? Oh --- I thought u said 'has' ...

[siquitibum]

Eric looks and sounds more like a monster nazi pupet coming out of the worst nightmare. Looks like going ¡arrrrhg! at any moment. Pity Ms. Breindel.

[LomU99]

@siquitibum the guy was dying of AIDS at the time...

[siquitibum]

@LomU99

[siquitibum]

@LomU99 u men he´s in a concentration camp by now?

[PoliticalPars]

Interesting exchange--both make fascinating POVs--1st amendment, accuracy in history, and what can or can't be said regarding WW-2 esp. the holocaust in print.

[UntoldBillions]

the original monotheist was the prophet Zoroaster who espoused that the world is one continual battle between truth and lies in the war between good and evil. Mankind could someday defeat jewish supremacism thru mass conversion to Zoroastrianism which would generate widespread devotion to the truth. The bogus holocaust stories clearly demonstrate how the wayward jews sustain their Luciferian rule thru the application of wicked propaganda lies that are designed to subjugate the truth.

[funboy7979]

Breindel effectively delivers the AIPAC party line. Whatever the truth, when research for an entire historical period is quashed one has to assume that those doing the quashing have something to hide. Poor Breindel, brainy Harvard Law grad, heroin addict and secretly dying of AIDS here. Typical screwed up Rupert Murdoch errand boy.

[ezrhino100]

you are all stupid goy. shut up!!! no soup for you!!!

[wickedceltics]

Excellent. Thanks for posting classic Hitchens.

[FreiKonigsberg]

Listen to this Jew's voice, he sounds stereotypically kosher.

[chinchonchinchon]

Antisemitic ideas are repulsive yet, I agree with Hitchens.

[asheradensein]

Eric's voice makes me want to scream.

[MrSueVeneer]

Voltaire

[ForTheArticles]

historians once examined the film footage from all the German camps which showed dead bodies and the total came to about 40,000 corpses of which nearly all died from disease and malnourishment. 55 million people met their deaths during WW2 of which perhaps 270,000 died at all of the Geman camps of which perhaps 30% were jews. The jews throughout time have implemented many hyper-exaggerated atrocity narratives such as the "exodus" and "holocaust" in order to camouflage age-old jewish supremacy.

[besmb2105]

@ForTheArticles "nearly all died from disease and malnourishment" does Arbeit Marcht Frei tell u anything.

lol.

[Clifton100]

This guy is creepy. The kind of creepy that ends up luring children in his car and molests them.

[InitiumNovum]

He probably isn't well here. Eric Breindel died of liver failure due to AIDS just two years later.

[Sweden80Here]

Shouldnt everything be open to doubt? isnt that was freedom is?

[Freethinker12341]

@Sweden80Here yes, everything should. we're allowed to think for ourselves and be skeptical. but i mean... come on. My HERO, Christopher Hitchens is denying what my grandmother survived! her entire family was wiped out in Auschwitz except for one brother. perhaps im misinterpreting what hitch is saying. i can't tell if he is simply defending free speech and the freedom to publish whatever you want or is he actually a firm holocaust denier....

[Sweden80Here]

@Freethinker12341 To question the holocaust is not the same as being a denier. Interesting though that there are no more common denier words. For example: French revolution denier, bloody sunday denier, ww1 denier etc. I can understand that you are being upset because of your personal loses in Auschwitz but to turn certain things into tabu and almost illegal to question can also be dangerous. I think that will create more deniers and skeptic people because it is almost ilegal to talk about it

[Freethinker12341]

@Sweden80Here makes sense

[qwer4o]

This guy in the spotty tie looks like a child fucker.

[justnotcricket]

the creepy looking guy didnt get over the idea that moral authority is being granted [as though somehow its part of the process of certifying something as 'morally acceptable'] by company x publishing this. hitchens moved on from this point miles ago was contending something else about the value of the nuts and bolts process of historic research which is quite detached from the conclusions reached. the other guy just contended this gave irving legitimacy, frankly he got lost in a corn maze.

[biggest23]

Hitch needs faces to talk to. The slipshod manner this debate was put together doesn't allow it to hit it's straps.

Because of this I think Hitch never really got his point across completely. Despite it being contractually and legally ok for the publisher to back out, the USA as a people should recognise that background protagonists are wielding self issued powers and this is an indicator of their work. "America is great because she is good, when she ceases to be good she ceases to be great"

[lepolemicist]

@ biggest23

Definitely not. If they allowed Eric Breindel to debate Hitchens face to face, Breindel would have withered there and died from AIDS on the spot, given that his immune system and cerebrum can't take the combination of reason and basic rights.

[biggest23]

Hahaha yeah spot on, although that would've definitely made the highlights reel a touch more edgy and given the mighty Hitch an almost supernatural power over future combatants in the "laugh in the face of death" world of extreme debating.

[gtechatheist]

Maaaan this guy is annoying as fuck.

[neelrobert]

Hitchens is saying the publishing house was afraid to upset the Jewish lobbyists, because their tentacles slither and slide everywhwere. But I think people are seeing through all the lies and propaganda which has been deceiving the world for the last 60 years. `You can`t fool all of the people all of the time`. There will be a backlash, but it`ll be a backlash against these liars.

[blueleadpot]

@neelrobert no, I don't think Hitchens is talking about "Jewish lobbyists". He would have said that if he believed it. He certainly would never use racist stereotypes, as you have. Sorry to disappoint you.

[ldailey06]

(cont...) Irving, apparently, had new information that could help our understanding of the Nazis. Christopher argues that it is the role of critics and, ultimately, the reader, not the publisher, to evaluate the historicity of the conclusions Irving's makes from said information.

[ldailey06]

Christopher isn't arguing that the publisher does not have the right to publish what it chooses. The publisher accepted the book for consideration, read it several times, began promoting it, and only declined at the last moment when a public backlash appeared imminent. As Christopher said, the publisher thought, "Oh dear, this row would not be worth the trouble." He's arguing that this is an extremely weak decision and the publisher should have gone forward...

[SurelyYewJest]

The problem as shown by CH's "opponent" is that of dealing with definitions, and Breindel is dealing with connotations of specific words by the public. This is an example of otherwise righteous moral indignation being misused to blind one's self and others to important perspectives and information. Breindel's most powerful point was that there are others unearthing the information, so why let a Nazi spread it. While academically salient, it still abridges the rights of those seeking information.

[weestro7]

I don't understand some of these comments. Christopher Hitchens is quite charismatic in his tremendous wit and enthusiasm for debate, so I can't believe he's called unlikeable. Also, I think Breindel's position is not that Irving's book should be banned or "off limits," but the infinitely more defensible position that this publisher has every right to do what is in its interest. Namely, it was in its interest to forgo the row and the reputation loss. It would perhaps be more persuasive to me...

[weestro7]

(continued)... if the book in question were less repugnant. I admire Hitchens and admit that he makes as good a case anybody can for this rather quixotic contention, but I'm not sure whether or not I will take seriously the notion that I should read Irving in order to understand the Nazis. I will do some research into Irving but at this point, knowing only what the debaters said and a bit from Wikipedia, I am doubtful Irving warrants a read.

On this topic, one could quote Carl Sagan...

[weestro7]

(continued final)... "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof."

[BI2016]

I agree,

A publishing house is like any other form of business, they owe no such fiduciary duty to the general public, if they do not want to be associated with such dross, then they should not have to be.

Perhaps Hitchens should have argued with the head of PBS or Nickelodeon as to why the book was not showcased on Barney and friends either?

[cathy0007]

The fact that any topic is off-limit for discussion is thoroughly repugnant.

[goroundit123]

the thoroughly dislikeable C Hitchens wins hands down...

[bloodcell9]

All Christopher Hitchens is saying is that the author of the book (David Irving), in writing about Nazi Germany during world war2, of the European Jewish Holocaust is WRONG..BUT because OFF the First Amendment in the United States Constitution..freedom of speech, the freedom of the press etc..then it does not matter that "David John Cawdell Irving" (the author) is an Anti-Semite, BECAUSE the author has the right say what he whats to say, reguardless IF he talking out of his ARSE. THATS ALL MAN.

[Steadno]

eric breindel reminds me of allen keys in the way he speaks and moves.

[Steadno]

Christopher Hitchens is a jew though

[violetninja]

My god is that tom cruise on the cover of vanity fair at the end?

No wonder everyone thought he was gay. lawl

[rogerrodd]

Hitchen's point is unarguably correct if you value the 1st Amendment. Major publishing houses should publish all that they are paid to publish. The public will rule with their wallets. If the book loses large sums of money due to lack of sales, interest, credibility or all 3 , the 1st Amendment has prevailed and remains intact. The backers will be unlikely to reinvest in similar drivel, and if they do they will again pay the price. Anything short of that premise is pure and simple censorship.

[poprockssuck87]

I won't mention your red herring there; However, this video has nothing to do with the First Amendment and everything to do with whether a publishing company is ethically obligated to print a book because, as Hitchens puts it, "They exist to make sure the widest range of ideas are avalible to readers." Hitchens is wrong! Maybe in a "Knowledge Utopia" that's true, but in the real world, publishing companies are there to make money.

[rogerrodd]

I fail to grasp your red herring reference, but I'll proceed on the basis of fact. Authors (usually financially backed or out of their own pocket) pay the publisher to print books under the publishing company's name. US publishers have a villainous history of refusal to publish opposing POVs to mainstream media brainwashing. These same books are huge sellers in other countries but they still can't get a US publisher to print them. That's not "Knowledge Utopia". That's censorship.

[poprockssuck87]

I wouldn't expect the perpetrator of a fallacy to understand the fallacy they've perpetrated. You made the assertion that, "Hitchens' point is unarguably correct if you value the 1st Amendment." This, my misguided friend, is the epitome of a red herring. "Proceed on the basis of fact?" HA!

FACT: There was obviously a clause in the contract that said the publisher could cancel the deal. Otherwise, Irving could sue for breach of contract.

AGAIN, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 1ST AMENDMENT!

[rogerrodd]

What part of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of The Press do you feel is a red herring or "Nothing to do with the 1st amendment"? You began with the false false premise that publishers refuse to print because they are "there to make money." Countless books that have been best sellers in Europe for years continue to be declined by the mainstream publishers on the basis of their CONTENT of opposition and exposure to this gov's lies and cover ups.

This, my misguided friend, is the issue at hand.

[poprockssuck87]

I was trying to keep this civil, but your stupidity has really crossed the line.

The publisher chose to cancel the deal, which they are legally allowed to do seeing as it's THEIR PRESS and it was within the terms of the contract. Whether it was from public outcry or for reasons of content, the publisher thought it was in its own interest to break the deal... LEGALLY!

Read the Constitution! No where in it does it say that a publisher is obligated to print an authors book!

[rogerrodd]

My sentiments exactly on civility. You clearly have flunked reading and auditory comprehension. You've missed the point of this discussion & site. You are the numbskull that continues to discuss contractual obligations in a philosophical discussion as to the ethical obligations of a publisher in a free thinking society. You contradict your earlier attempt at obfuscation that publishers want to make money. Public outcry and content usually fuels the sales. Don't write back-I'm done with you.

[poprockssuck87]

What a foolish man you are. Stick to your mentally sterile comedy.

Irving was not censored and the publishing company did what it believed was in its best interest. US publishing companies think beyond the horizon. Though it may make money in the short-term, the backlash and future public perception could cost the company many times that in future sales. Thus the reason I stated "A publishing company is [never] ethically obligated to print a book."

Go take a business course... I'll wait!

[rogerrodd]

I'm sorry to report that I won't be able to pay any more attention to you. That is why you came to this site with your juvenile and redundant "rights of the businessman's" rantings. I've no more time for chess playing losers who live in mom's basement and pick online quarrels while pleading for attention. It must be hard to accept the constant rejection from your online dating sites, although you have demonstrated your persistence by still trying to get in the last word. Flail away little boy.

[poprockssuck87]

Yet you still felt the need to respond back after stating, "I'm done with you."

You calling me juvenile is rather ironic seeing as you hold the pathetic, naively idealistic view that "everyone should get a say, despite the legality of the situation."

And now you're desperately attacking chess? Really?! The oldest and most complex game in the world. One that has been played by nearly every great mind in the last 400 years? Stick to poker bud, and cheap, two-dimensional, inane jokes.

[TerrySleeper]

The best response to Irving - Holocaust-denier and phony historian - is given in the following book: Richard J. Evans, "Telling Lies about Hitler" (London, 2002) - it includes extracts from a damning 350-page summing-up of DI by a British High Court judge.

Mr. Justice Gray outlined DI's omissions, distortions and suppression of relevant evidential historical material, concluding that DI "manipulates the historical record in order to make it conform with his political beliefs."

QED.

[dudeandsparky]

Eric Breindel died 2 years later from liver disease. He looks weird but he is probably ill.

[bertinotti]

junkie with aids

[Rycon973]

I'm all about hitchens and free speech here...but come on. HIV and AIDS is not a mere dismissal. its not a question of morality. yes it plagues a dispraportionate amount of IV drug users and homosexual males. but think of africa where the male and female ratio of infection is 1:1. But more so think of Washington D.C. where The rate of AIDS case in the District is around 10 time the US rate. Rate per 100,000 citizens US 15 and DC 170. wake up and ask why?

[bertinotti]

why are you pontificating to me? he was an overbearing hack who played the Jewish card ad nauseum. not half as creative a thinker as a tidy formalist who substituted affected turns of phrase for substantive thinking.

[SatchmoSings]

I do not know whether or not he had AIDS but he DEFINETELY WAS A JUNKIE!!

[FrankinHolland]

Good riddance. Maybe we will have a chance to live in a world without religious dogma dictating everything we do.

[ssalemi]

There's nothing remotely anti-semitic in the book (I've read it); they nuked it because organized jewry doesn't want Irving's work publicized or promoted in any way, shape, or form. The notion that the book is anti-semitic is a lie.

[SelfDampening]

Walt and Mearsheimer had to have their great book "Israel Lobby" published in England because no house in the USA had the balls to publish a book written by very highly regarded professors from Harvard and U. of Chicago.

[ssalemi]

yes exactly

[dreameroftheday]

Breindel was another neocon zionist who demands no debate on the holocaust. Without the holocaust Germany and US wouldn't be paying billions to Israel and Jews couldn't play the "victim card"

[JohnAdamCulligan]

Breindel was right. Freedom of Expression was not the issue in question. David Irving has a right to his opinions, just as St. Martins, for whatever reason they choose to cite, has a right to say "no thanks" to his works.

Hitchens himself confirmed this when he debated this issue on NPR a few years back, by saying that Mort Klein preventing him from speaking at an event was not a violation of his right to express an opinion. Glad to see he has changed his mind.

[xxmonickkkkaxx]

Eric Breindel is a fucking ZOG tool.

[Sanderniet]

by Allah that Eric guy has a nervous voice. he sounds like he is crapping his pants on the spot. makes him look weird.

[desiiii420]

huh hitchens wearing a tie?

[azmista]

Love hitchens but Breindel kind of owns him here.

[HoorayTV21]

When in the majority one can never lose. Dumb asshole! Truth means nothing to the unbelieving masses.

[alienmoonbase]

Wow! Hitchens got an ASS WHOPPIN! LOL

Still Hitchens is the BEST in 2008

No question.

Hitch is the best, but its fun to see him take an intellectual beating from an American no less.

Go HItch!

[Voltajavi]

i DISAGREE. HITCHEns STARTS WITH FREE SPEECH and ends with such

[Freethinker12341]

@Voltajavi so Hitchens isn't really a holocaust denier?? is he just simply defending free speech and the freedom to publish whatever a person wants?

[alienmoonbase]

I must live on another planet. Breindel comes across as far more sincere than Hitchens.

Breindel is the intellectual that I would be. Nervous, but extremely intellectual.

Hitchens drinks, therefore comes across as slightly more aggressive, but his logic is weak compared to Breindel.

Breindel, like few others, got the best of Hitchens here. I think Hitchens knows it now.

Hitchens is stil the best in 2008.

[grazie55555]

actually they're both wrong. publishers don't exist as moral compasses and they don't exist to distribute the widest range of ideas...they exist to make money.

the fact that the publishing house only decided to remove the book after media pressure threatened the financial future of the publishing house is reflected in that.

[sarahnewt]

Mr Breindel has his head so far up his own arse that he will never be able to hear anyone...

[skingrafter]

either mr. breindel has parkinson's, or he is extremely, extremely nervous.

[richmond450]

Why do the Jews always hate the truth?

[acehimself]

Man this Breindel guy has the most awful, painful to listen to voice I've ever heard!

[joeyecw]

The only point Breindel is arguing here is of the grotesque opinions held by the author, which he argues well. But he does not argue effectively as to why a publishing house should not consider publishing such a work. Hitch is right that it should always be up to the reader to decide (with some guidance from reviewers, if need be) for themselves. And there IS, as Hitch says, a great benefit to anyone who reads stuff like that: It makes you reexamine what you thought was true.

[thegreatestbak]

nice summary

[amazingjames311]

Mr.Breindel holds the common conservative stance, suppression of oppossing veiws.

it doesn't matter that this Nazi revisionist is wrong, it is the constant pull on these people. The pull that drives them to think that we the masses are inferior to them; that we could not make educated and informed decisions, and we must be protected.

[JohnAdamCulligan]

How is that necessarily a conservative stance? Of late in Canada, for instance, the push for censorship is primarily coming from "Liberals." I'll grant that there are indeed conservatives - especially social conservatives - who tend to favor censorious actions when they're offended, but I don't think it's really a left-right issue.

[machalot]

Censorship doesn't belong to any particular ideology.

[AnunC8]

When you deny someone else, no matter how ludicrous their point, their right to speak, you also deny yourself your right to hear, as well as your right to respond. While I disagree with the books point, I would like to hear what it has to say. With the author's right to say it comes my right to call it foolery.

[writersblock26]

@AnunC8 But this is not about the right to free speech, and other countries such as Austria have effectively seen to that by denying in 2004 David Irving's passage to the National Press Club conference to which he was invited to give a series of lectures. Rather, the issue is the right of the publishing company to decide which books it will (and will not) publish. Still, if I were Irving (and I'm glad I'm not), I would sue St. Martin's Press for "breach of contract."

[owenline]

@writersblock26 Yeah...we're glad your not Irving either...

[enter321]

Breindel has this constant scowl where he looks like he's constipated.

[3rdWorldCrusader]

Most butthurt bureaucrats like him do.

[SatchmoSings]

enter321--

Heroin use makes you constipated; Breindel was a Junkie.

[St37One]

Eric Breindel is a comical character. It really seems like he goes out of his way to seem like a weasle. His extreme character can not be a result of neglect, no way!

[gilgtc]

he's a freak

[ImNoDhimmiDummy]

I would only support Hitchens right to defend his opinions on absolute free speech.

[damage9000]

Is Eric Breindel real? He sounds like a machine with a short-circuit. Hitchens based on freedom of speech scores some good points. It reminds me of the Chomsky-Faurisson case.

[nickglais]

Hitchens is weak on this one

[ThinkerHA]

Hitchens' argument got destoryed, though I generally like Hitchens.

I wonder what Hitchens thinks now after the libel suit...

[PhillyDickinson]

Why on earth are you posting that nonsense here?

[michaelprua]

One of the few debates I have seen in which Hitchens does not utterly destroy his opponent.

[gilgtc]

I think Breindels's agressivity together with the sound delay issues impaired the progression of his delivery. Usually Hitchens presents his argument in a very descriptive and elucidating manner which takes some time to build up. He kept being interrupted, even by Rose. He still delivered a couple of blows towards the end though.

[kdnewman]

Yes - please post more Hitchens videos, particularly archived versions like 90's interviews with Charlie Rose. It reminds one of a long-forgotten Hitchens who was simply added verve & wit into public debate. Thank God (pun intended) that his new work, God is NOT Great, revives this wonderful tradition.

[BagheeraRomeo]

whats with that guys voice?

[rolpho]

He is a whiny stooge

[LeatherShorts]

Breindel had health problems and then died from liver cancer. Nobody believes the Holohox anymore. Breindel got busted in 1993 for buying heroin.